Climate Change Will Explode Plant Growth In The Future And This Is Bad Or Something

By William Teach November 5, 2019 – 10:44 am

Members of the Cult of Climastrology can always find something to complain about

Here we go

By the end of the century plants could consume substantially more water, leaving less for people across North America, Europe, and Central Asia—even if it rains and snows more, a new study reports today in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Plants are the primary regulators of the water cycle, responsible for 60 percent of the flow of water from the land to the atmosphere. Research now shows how climate change is altering this vital cycle in several different ways.

Without massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, the global average temperature will rise between 4 and 6 degrees Celsius, with a near doubling of atmospheric CO2 by century’s end. Those hotter, CO2-rich future conditions are akin to turning up the heat and pumping CO2 into a greenhouse. The likely result, assuming no other limiting factors such as lack of nutrients, is an explosion of plant life. But that will leave considerably less water for people to use, said Mankin in an interview.

See? More plants are bad. And, yeah, they are actually saying that the global temperature will rise between 7.2 and 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, despite the temp only going up 1.5F since 1850. Nope, no scaremongering.

Researchers have now shown a third effect: As CO2 levels rise, it amps up photosynthesis. Plants in this hotter, CO2-rich environment grow bigger, with more leaves. That means when it rains there will be far more wet leaves creating more surface area for more evaporation to occur. Computer modelling shows that such enhanced leaf evaporation has a large effect on runoff and soil moisture, says Mankin.

Computer models. Snort. It’s all just duckspeak.

Read: Climate Change Will Explode Plant Growth In The Future And This Is Bad Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrat Party Israel Haters Pushing Party To Rethink Policy On Israel

By William Teach November 5, 2019 – 7:09 am

Elected Democrats are feeling more and more emboldened to show their Israel and Jew hatred, especially those in safe Democrat districts, because so many of their supporters are Israel and Jew haters

Progressives press Democrats to rethink Israel policy

Progressive House Democrats are putting pressure on the party to reconsider the amount and nature of U.S. aid to Israel, something that has long been supported strongly by both parties.

The shift partly reflects the liberal energy running through the Democratic party, which is embracing more progressive positions.

The U.S. provides $3.8 billion annually for Israel to purchase American military hardware, including aircraft, tanks, munitions, missile defense, among other needs with respect to ensuring Israel’s own defense.

Progressives argue President Trump’s unflinching support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Israeli government’s own hard-line stance on Palestinian rights, demands a more robust debate of how Congress can influence U.S. policy to Israel.

“It’s not that anybody is against Israel,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, told The Hill. “But they don’t like the idea that that aid might be used to move forward undemocratic or even racist policies in Israel. So I think they are getting very involved.”

Pramila is part of The Squad, and we’ve already seen the anti-Semitism and Israel hatred from other members Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, with AOC giving them support, which is also, shockingly, mentioned in the article. How is Israel racist? Palestinian is not a race, and, really, most Jews and Palestinians are of the same race, anyhow. It’s just a word that nutters throw out.

The party and House caucus remains adamantly pro-Israel, and earlier this year the House — in a 398 to 17 vote — approved a resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel. Progressives argued the measure violated the free-speech rights of Americans, but 209 Democrats backed it compared to 16 Democrats who opposed it. Four Democrats voted “present.”

Still, lawmakers are becoming more vocal in calling for change in U.S. policies toward Israel.

Most Democrats know it is a Very Bad Idea to vote against Israel, as a goodly chunk of their base would like, especially in the East and West coast enclaves, such as San Francisco. More, though, are willing to expose their anti-Semitism, which is what this is about. It has nothing to do with any sort of high minded principles about holding Israel accountable, “racism”, or anything else. They just hate Israel and Jews. And are feeling emboldened to act on this.

Read: Democrat Party Israel Haters Pushing Party To Rethink Policy On Israel »

Posted in Democrats, Israel | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Starts Process To Formally Pull Out Of Paris Climate Agreement

By William Teach November 5, 2019 – 6:55 am

The Paris Climate Agreement was historic. Historic! We were all told that. It was a Big Deal. Very few nations are actually succeeding in upholding their pledges, but, it was still Historic! It just wasn’t worth bothering submitting to the U.S. Legislative branch. But, rather than just wiping away America’s Barack Obama’s commitment to it with the stroke of a pen, Donald Trump has followed the layout of the deal, and this formally began Monday, which has made most media outlets crazy

Trump begins year-long process to formally exit Paris climate agreement

Donald Trump is moving to formally exit the Paris climate agreement, making the United States the only country in the world that will not participate in the pact, as global temperatures are set to rise 3C and worsening extreme weather will drive millions into poverty.

Nothing in there having anything to do with scaremongering, right?

The paperwork sent by the US government to withdraw begins a one-year process for exiting the deal agreed to at the UN climate change conference in Paris in 2015. The Trump administration will not be able to finalize its exit until a day after the presidential election in November 2020.

The French presidential office said Emmanuel Macron and Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping would sign a pact in Beijing on Wednesday that makes reference to the “irreversibility” of the Paris climate accord.

The Élysée palace official expressed disappointment at Trump’s move, saying: “We regret this and this only makes the Franco-Chinese partnership on the climate and biodiversity more necessary.”

The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, announced the development on Monday afternoon, saying the agreement would be an “unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses and taxpayers” and that the US has already reduced its heat-trapping emissions.

It’s just like the Kyoto Protocol, which President Bill Clinton refused to sign after the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 against it, as it was bad for the US economy. Why would we intentionally cause problems with our economy for something that wasn’t submitted for ratification and allows nations like China to continue their “polluting” ways?

The former vice-president and climate campaigner Al Gore said in a statement posted on Twitter: “No one person or party can stop our momentum to solve the climate crisis. But those who try will be remembered for their complacency, complicity, and mendacity in attempting to sacrifice the planet for their greed.”

Would this be the same guy with a giant carbon footprint who takes private jets around the world?

The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Trump’s move a “disastrous decision that sells out our children’s future”.

Socialism would solve this, along with destroying our economy, right?

In addition, the Trump administration has also pulled US funding commitments to help the developing world cut pollution.

John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, president Barack Obama’s secretaries of state and defense respectively, in a Washington Post op-ed, called it a “dark day for America”.

And that’s what really upsets the Warmists, that the U.S. will not be giving aid money in perpetuity with no strings attached. Paris removed strings and makes giving the money an obligation where we, and the other 1st World nations, the bad guys paying a debt.

At the end of the day, though, this is a minor story, which will mostly disappear, because most U.S. citizens do not care about ‘climate change’ in practice. Most refuse to pay even $10 a month to “solve” it.

Read: Trump Starts Process To Formally Pull Out Of Paris Climate Agreement »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, When You Purchase Underwear Are You Supporting Trump?

By William Teach November 4, 2019 – 4:22 pm

Remember last week when Barack Obama was calling out cancel culture, about people being too Woke? The Star Ledger Editorial Board doesn’t

Are you supporting Trump with that underwear purchase? | Editorial

What is Netflix doing with its money – covertly supporting Donald Trump?

We have the same question about the other companies we all patronize. Whose causes are they donating to? Wouldn’t you want to know?

Many are still hiding this information from you, and their own shareholders, according to the latest report by Center for Political Accountability (CPA), a nonpartisan group that’s spent years tracking the issue.

If you buy toys from Mattel, fly Delta, use TripAdvisor, Twitter or wear Hanes undies, you have no idea whose interests you’re helping to bankroll. These companies are among the least transparent in America about their political spending, CPA found.

It’s understandable that executives are leery of the backlashes we saw against SoulCycle, Nathan’s hot dogs, New Balance, Louis Vuitton and other brands seen as supporting Trump – or those like Nike, perceived as part of the resistance.

Yeah, it is understandable. Republicans might talk about boycotts, and even do one, but, we won’t be out front of the company protesting, we won’t be abusing the company, we won’t be going to the homes of the big wigs, we won’t be breaking the windows, nor all the other stuff the Woke crowd does. We won’t be trying to drive them out of business.

Of course, this really isn’t about underwear

But transparency is our last remaining hope against an America dominated by oligarchs. The fight about containing political money has been lost, thanks mostly to Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United. Their money is already contaminating our politics.

This has been a big bugaboo from the Democrats since the decision came out, even though Democrats take advantage of it constantly. But, the article still really isn’t so much about Citizens United as forcing compliance in order to beat up Republican donating companies

The least we can do now is force companies to publicly acknowledge it. Even the Supreme Court invited Congress to force disclosure of this spending.

The idea here, though, is to make companies divulge their donations so they can be “shamed”, bludgeoned, really, by Democrat forces for committing Wrongthink.

And it’s not just about one politician. It’s about issues like gun safety and climate change. Google, Bank of America and Coca-Cola all represented themselves as climate defenders, only to be caught donating to a GOP group seeking to undo limits on carbon pollution.

Companies with very progressive diversity policies might be discovered to be backing politicians who engage in racial gerrymandering or voter suppression tactics. They run a real risk of being attacked for hypocrisy

See?

When will the Star Ledger report what candidates, parties, and special interests they donate to?

Read: Say, When You Purchase Underwear Are You Supporting Trump? »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Do You Eat Alone? That’s Bad For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 4, 2019 – 1:04 pm

The members of the Cult of Climastrology just can’t help themselves in getting involved in our business

Solo dining is bad for our mental health—and for the planet

Eating alone, once considered an oddity, has become commonplace for many across the Western world. Fast food chains are promoting eating on the go or “al desko.” Why waste time in your busy day sitting down at a table with others?

Surveys indicate that a third of Britons regularly eat on their own. OpenTable, an online restaurant booking app, found that solo dining in New York increased by 80% between 2014 and 2018. And in Japan, the world capital of solo dining, a trend for “low interaction dining” has taken off. Restaurants are opening which facilitate the ultimate solo dining experience: passing bowls of noodles through black curtains into individual booths.

Is this a worrying trend? We think so. Research is revealing the negative impacts of eating alone, which has been found to be linked to a variety of mental and physical health conditions, from depression and diabetes to high blood pressure. So it’s cheering that hundreds of food sharing initiatives have sprung up around the world which aim to improve food security and sustainability while combating loneliness.

Or, maybe some people prefer to eat alone. At lunch time, just let me read my book.

All this is capitalized upon by the food industry. Solo dining suits commercial interests across the food system, with the rising giants of the food industry keen to communicate a convenience culture around food—eat when you want, wherever you are.

Huh. It’s all a conspiracy from Big Food.

So it is certain that food systems need to be reconfigured to meet many of the UN’s global 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. But achieving these goals will not be easy. People are increasingly disconnected from the food system, with an ever-shrinking number of people implicated in food production. As the then UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, argued back in 2014, one of the greatest challenges to creating a more sustainable and inclusive food system is how to ensure people are able to participate actively in it.

Government is the answer! And we need “food sharing”

The seeds for such a world already exist. Our research into food sharing initiatives over the last four years has demonstrated that reinvigorating opportunities to share food—whether that is eating, growing, or redistributing food together with others—can support greater food democracy as well as sustainability. So how do we get there?

How about you leave everyone alone and mind your own business? If people want to eat alone, let them. We don’t need climate nags to nag and force people to eat socially, grow food together, and more. And be nagged about being climate conscious while we’re eating.

What is certain is food sharing has the potential to really change how we think about the sustainability of our food system and the wellbeing of global populations. Of course, food sharing will not solve all the issues facing our flawed global food system but, at its best, it demonstrates how the food system can and should be designed for people and the planet, rather than just for profit.

This article just keeps going and going.

If such initiatives are to be a force for change, however, their benefits need to be clear. On the policy level, this means they need to be measurable.

Who measures it? Government, of course!

Governments tend to see food only as a commodity. They regulate food activities as if they were either solely commercial businesses or entirely private matters. As a result, the social, environmental, and health benefits that accrue from food sharing that don’t fit neatly in either of these boxes are often missed. The lack of holistic food policy departments, particularly at the local government level, does not help.

There’s way, way more in this screed. These lunatics need to mind their own business. But, they won’t.

Read: Do You Eat Alone? That’s Bad For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 4, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the myth of social media meddling.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Your Clothes Are A Big Problem For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach November 4, 2019 – 7:35 am

If you really cared about ‘climate change’ you’d either stop wearing clothes or just make your own, you know. This comes from the excitable climate cultist mind of Elizabeth Cline, the author of “The Conscious Closet: The Revolutionary Guide to Looking Good While Doing Good.”

Wear Clothes? Then You’re Part of the Problem

Climate protests drew millions around the world in September. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have rolled out ambitious plans to cut carbon while making the economy greener. There’s a sense of momentum to solve our planetary crisis. And yet a leading cause of climate change remains persistently overlooked or trivialized: clothing.

And billions didn’t protest, didn’t care. Anyhow, why were all those protesters who care wearing clothes?

The clothing and footwear industry is responsible for 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, nearly the same as the entire European Union, according to a study by the environmental services group Quantis. Without abrupt intervention, the industry’s impact on the climate is on track to increase by almost half by 2030.

But clothing does not appear to be mentioned in the Democratic candidates’ climate plans, nor in the Green New Deal proposed by House Democrats. And while it’s coming up more in coverage about low-emissions lifestyle changes, it’s still viewed as a problem mostly for fashionistas.

Indeed, caring about clothes is often considered frivolous, at odds with concern about the fate of the planet. The actor and environmentalist Woody Harrelson expressed this view when he hosted “Saturday Night Live” the week after the recent climate marches in New York. “I was always anti-fashion,” he said, “because it always seemed to me there were more important things to care about” — like melting ice caps, the Amazon burning, and the pollution of our water, air and food. Many people fail to see how the $2.5 trillion apparel industry is connected to our environment, which means we persistently pay no attention to how it might help us solve our climate crisis.

There’s always something new for climate cultists to complain about, and this is the newest push, having grown over the last year or so. Warmists have protested fashion shows and clothing manufacturers over that time.

Clothes are easy to ignore because they are made far away and have throughout history been made by enslaved, unpaid and low-paid laborers, often by women. But clothing affects every other environmental problem we care about. Let’s say you wear a cotton T-shirt — it required thousands of gallons of water to make. If that T-shirt is viscose rayon, it may well have come from a tree felled in the Amazon (viscose rayon is made from plants). And if it’s polyester, acrylic or nylon, you’re wearing plastic. When those plastic clothes get washed, they junk up our oceans with microplastic pollution.

Those things have nothing to do with ‘climate change’, but, the Cult of Climastrology always takes every real issue and puts it under the banner of Hotcoldwetdry.

Fortunately, some clothing companies are waking up to the climate crisis. A growing number of brands are bowing to grass-roots pressure and consumer surveys that show that sustainability and ethics are top concerns for young shoppers. In August, at the Group of 7 summit, 32 clothing brands got together to set “science-based targets” for emission reductions. Since then, two dozen more brands have signed this so-called Fashion Pact. Kering, the luxury conglomerate that owns Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and Balenciaga, has set a goal for all of its brands to go carbon-neutral.

So, they’re pretending to Do Something to attempt to get these climate cultists to leave them alone.

The clothing industry, like most industries, is also stubbornly reliant on fossil fuels. They’re used to fire up boilers in textile mills, to make the pesticides dumped onto cotton fields and to produce the gobs of chemicals that dye and finish fabrics. Fossil fuels are also the feedstock of synthetic fibers, which now make up the bulk of what we wear. Getting clothing off oil will not be easy.

No, it won’t. Why would they give them up when most Warmists refuse to give up fossil fuels? What, exactly, are they supposed to replace them with? That cargo ship from China and Vietnam won’t run on wind-power.

Consumers have an important part to play in making fashion sustainable. We can work to extend the life of all clothes by switching more of our purchases to secondhand and online resale, renting for special occasions, and repairing clothes instead of throwing them away. We can choose remanufactured and upcycled apparel like those on offer from Eileen Fisher and Converse.

If the peons are all buying second hand, who’s buying firsthand?

We can turn our washing machines down to cold and consider air drying more of our laundry.

Good luck with that.

We also need activists, journalists, scientists, investors and academics who focus on sustainability to include clothing in their work. We need technological innovation and investment in new fibers and manufacturing processes, deeper research and more cutting-edge ideas.

She means Government needs to spend the money and force this.

And we need government action and innovative policy that accounts for the global impact of the stuff we buy.

See?

But first we need all people who care about climate change to understand that they’re part of the problem and the solution, just by wearing clothes.

How helpful is it to Blamestorm people in this manner?

Read: NY Times: Your Clothes Are A Big Problem For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

The Democrats Next Phase Of Impeachment Will Maybe Possibly Begin At Some Point

By William Teach November 4, 2019 – 7:17 am

According to Democrats, President Donald Trump is a Very Bad Man who did Very Bad Things, and this is totally not about partisan politics. They say he needs to be removed to Save Our Democracy. And this is so important that they don’t really have a plan on how to proceed

This week: Democrats churn toward next phase of impeachment fight

The House is turning its focus toward the next phase of its high-profile impeachment fight, after formalizing procedures for the inquiry.

The House voted 232-196 last week, largely along party lines, on a resolution that establishes rules for open hearings and the questioning of witnesses by members and staff.

The public hearings are expected to happen as soon as this month. With the House out of town this week, and the week of Nov. 18, that gives them a narrow two week-window to hold hearings, absent a change to the schedule.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told Bloomberg that she didn’t know a timeframe for the overall investigation, but she expected public hearings this month.

“I would assume there would be public hearings in November,” she said.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) told ABC News that he expected public hearings “very, very soon.”

If this was So Darned Important, if it was about saving the nation, you’d think they would have a plan. They had to be pushed and prodded to even hold that vote on formalizing an impeachment inquiry, now they’re just farting around with some depositions, and will eventually get around to hearings. Which might sorta be open. They aren’t sure just how to proceed because this will expose this whole thing as a sham, a political witch hunt, one which began even before Trump was elected.

Read: The Democrats Next Phase Of Impeachment Will Maybe Possibly Begin At Some Point »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

For Some Reason, British Mom Has To Defend Spending Money At Beauty Salon For Her And Daughters

By William Teach November 3, 2019 – 3:51 pm

Welcome to the Age Of Offended

Mom defends spending over $1G a month at beauty salon with 3 daughters: ‘We are fabulous’

Look good, feel good.

One glamorous mom in the U.K. doesn’t mind spending big at the beauty salon each month to ensure that she and her three daughters can feel like their most “fabulous” selves.

Hannah Skidmore recently revealed that she spends nearly $1,300 per month on facials, blowouts, manicures and pedicures for daughters Tia, 17, Brooke, 9, and Valentina, 1, and herself. Acknowledging that some people may think the luxuries are “spoiling” her kids, the proud mom argues that every penny is well spent for the sake of self-care.

In an interview published Friday, Skidmore described the frequent spa sessions as cherished mother-daughter bonding time.

“I am teaching my daughters how to look after themselves,” the woman from Birmingham, West Midlands, England said, The Sun reports. “We all adore our trips to the salon because it’s our time to relax, gossip and have a giggle.”

Why would she have to defend herself? Why is this anyone else’s business? Why was it necessary for The Sun to publish an article about this? If some people are Offended and have a butthurt, that’s their problem. If she wants to spend the money, that’s her business. Personally, I think it’s silly spending that kind of money, but, hey, if I were to simply blow $1k a month on something frivolous, she’d probably think I was being silly. Maybe traveling to different arenas to see my NJ Devils play? Doesn’t matter, it’s her money. In the Age of Offended, everyone has to get into everyone else’s business.

Read: For Some Reason, British Mom Has To Defend Spending Money At Beauty Salon For Her And Daughters »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 3, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bicycle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on this being National Day Of Remembrance For Those Killed By Illegal Aliens.

It’s leather week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 12 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove